Justice Department asks NCAA why it doesn't have football playoff
Under what possible interpretation of the Constitution is the existence, or lack thereof, of a college football championship game a legitimate interest of the US government?
It's not. This government is out of control. That shouldn't be just a conservative view, either.
20 comments:
Yes, there needs to be a playoff.
No, it's not the government's business.
"Interstate Commerce Clause" silly.
All big business is big government business.
By taking tax exempt status, using public land, and tax dollars, they are subject to regulation. That makes it the government's business.
Does USC use public land?
Ignoring that for a moment, I don't argue that they're subject to regulation--in fact, I'm quite sure they get plenty of regulation. Please tell me I'm wrong in inferring that you think that they're subject to whatever whim someone in government has; I just cannot see why the federal government needs to get involved in whether or not there is a football championship game.
Seriously, can you honestly and with a straight face say that the existence or lack of a football championship game is somehow of genuine importance to the federal government? Really?
It's about fair and equal access to millions of tax exempt dollars, D. The exposure affects recruiting and alumni contributions, among other ventures, and it's big business. It's not about the idea of a championship - it's about fair and equal opportunity under the law. And that is definitely the business of the federal government - especially when you are talking about commerce across state lines.
And to the comment about USC, or any other private college. They are participating in the government sanctioned and tax exempt NCAA. If they want to go off and negotiate a separate private sector league and TV contract, they are free to do so. But they won't - they are profiting big time from a government established system.
It's about money - and if I were a constituent of a congressman from Idaho, then I'd be quite interested in making sure Boise State doesn't get screwed by a poorly managed system that is profiting under government protection and subsidy.
Wow, is there *anything*, then, which the government couldn't stick its nose in regarding colleges? Can it mandate the colors of uniforms, for instance? I'm sure a (silly) argument could be made that the manufacture of uniforms would cross state lines and hence, under your (mis)interpretation of the commerce clause, could *legitimately* be regulated by the feds.
It's the word "legitimately" that's key here.
I'm right there with you, mazenko. When an undefeated team like Utah or Boise State is regularly denied access to the national championship, due primary to the region of the country they are in, I certainly think there's a rationale to forcing them either to add more equal access or give up the tax exempt status.
Max, even assuming there's some injustice here, I just don't see how football is any concern of the US gov't. I think the football lover in you is overriding your libertarian spirit.
Should the US gov't get involved at the Sundance Film Festival, for instance? or how about who gets to perform at the Bridge Benefit? Should the feds get involved in the draft for the Red Wings? Should they dictate which companies can and cannot attend the Consumer Electronics Expo in Vegas?
Uniforms, D.? Really? A little reducto ad absurdem "slippery slope" logical fallacy is your response. Regulating uniforms is in no way related to my point about regulating access to millions in potential ad revenue, or the issue of fair and equal access under the law.
Your indiscriminate view against government regulation is leading you to overlook legitimate cause for regulation. All the examples - from Sundance to Consumer Expos - are ignoring the issue of public/private funding. Those are not using a government organized and subsidized system or public lands or competing against public entities or claiming tax exempt status for an educational mission.
It's not about football, D. It's about commerce and tax exempt status. Government spending and regulation deserves a critical eye - but a preconceived notion that it will automatically being a conspiratorial overreach of power is weak.
When you let a warped and stretched view of the commerce clause be your guide, it's amazing what you can come up with. Maybe I just don't view the world with the "nuance" you do.
Again: NCAA isn't doing anything *wrong*. They're not breaking any laws. They just don't have a certain type of game; they don't provide one specific product, to wit, a national championship football game. And somehow you find that a "legitimate" interest of government.
I wonder if you see *any* limits on government at all--to include the colors of uniforms.
So. Let's get the government out of football. I see no reason what ever for it to be in it.
And make the "schools" treat football as as a business expense.
Maybe the only thing Creighton does right, but they have "athletics" report to the VP for administration, not an "academic" division.
I promote numerous limits on government - including colors of uniforms. I know you don't truly perceive my views that negatively.
I support limits on government subsidies of industries, limits of government subsidies of individuals through tax deductions, limits on government's role in theology, limits on government's use of theology in crafting legislation, limits on government's authority to take private property, limits on government's restriction of free speech, limits of government's role in education (school day/year/course length, curriculum, etc.) limits on federal money for private construction, limits on government's defining of personal and emotional issues, etc.
The NCAA is not a governmental agency. They are a separate, private entity, an association of schools working together for the common good. The "Federal Funds" they receive are in the form of Loans and grants payable to the respective students, not directly to the institution. TV and Media deals are made without the Fed's involvement, other than the FCC decency rules. They are suject to regulation, such as Title IX, IDEA, etc. but no legislation is needed!
The government should not be involved in NCAA, MLB, NHL, NFL, MLS, or any other organization other than in regards to issues of federal legality. In fact, Congress' whole investigation to MLB steroids was unneccesary unless they were looking to enforce drug trafficing laws.
Lef Coast Ref
Beat me to the point on the McCain boondogle, err hearings on steroid use in the MLB...but I disagree on Congress looking into it for law enforcement issues. That's what we have the DEA, FBI, local law enforcement, etc to handle. If anything Congress should have the heads of these agencies explain what they are doing to handle this issue.
Absolutely concur--there was no reason for the Congress to hold meetings on steroid use in major league baseball, either.
MikeAT - after reading your post, I agree and withdraw my comment.
Don't want investigations? Don't take public money, financing, and land.
It seems clear that you don't find *any* limits of government control--and on that we will vehemently disagree.
Oh, I know you'll storm back and claim one or two limits, but combine this with your comments on the "undertaxed" thread and I infer that you think the government gets, for the most part, whatever it wants. I believe TJ and the Gang would call that "tyranny."
We still talking NCAA? What public money do they get?? What financing goes to the NCAA?? What land does the NCAA get from the government? None of these apply. Now, MLB has had quite a few "public funds" stadiums built, but 99% of those were voted on by the locals, and it has stimulated the economy in the adjacent parts of town (see Denver, San Diego, et.al.) But the FED'S have no jurisdiction.
Don't be confusing the softheads with a lot of facts, now.
They get all explody.
I wonder how the troll I own has responded. Actually, I don't.
Post a Comment